Is the 2012 campaign at a quiet turning point?

posted at 1:21 pm on May 14, 2012 by Karl

[T]he months between the end of the primary season and the formal start of the general election at the conventions are an especially perilous period for candidates in Mr. Romney’s position.

It is then that challengers to an incumbent are most susceptible to being defined on terms other than their own, because despite months on the campaign trail they are still not yet terribly well-known by many Americans. Unflattering characteristics, new elements of their record, gaffes and embarrassing biographical details – all can take on outsize importance as rival campaigns labor through the spring and summer to create perceptions that stick with voters through Election Day.

***

The risks of failing to win the spring-summer narrative battle are substantial. Just ask Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole or John Kerry, all of whom failed to establish strong positive images during this period and allowed their opponents to brand them in ways they never overcame.

Oddly enough, the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza recently noted that in elections with an incumbent since 1980, Mondale, Dole and Kerry all had high favorable ratings and lost, while Bill Clinton won with middling favorable ratings. And unlike Stevenson, Cillizza actually shows you the numbers that back him up. Stevenson is engaged in some zombie journalism about the effectiveness of negative campaigning. At least Cillizza was good enough to state his premises openly, even if he tended to bury them, e.g.:

Political scientists would have you believe that the data is determinative. But the data is subject to how each side conducts their respective campaign.

Actually, political scientists who stress that campaigns tend to turn on the fundamentals almost always concede that campaigns matter. Their argument is simply that they don’t matter as much as journalists who make their living covering them think. Mondale, Dukakis, Dole and Kerry all ran against incumbents (or a sitting Veep) who benefited from recovering or healthy economies. The only winning candidate in those cycles who substantially outperformed what the economy would suggest was Clinton, who still failed to reach 50% of the vote.

BTW, this problem is not limited to political coverage. Last week, the NYT magazine profiled Joe Weisenthal, the lead financial blogger for Business Insider, including this anecdote:

Last summer, amid rising concern that the economy would tip back into recession, Weisenthal repeatedly highlighted contrarian chunks of evidence suggesting that we were actually on the verge of stronger growth. It was a lonely view for a long time. It was also correct.

In a post last November titled “Everyone Is Wrong About What Is Driving the Market These Days,” Weisenthal reproduced a Google search showing a slew of articles describing the stock market as “headline-driven,” meaning that prices were responding to the latest news. Then he showed a chart he created illustrating the close relationship between movements in stock prices and a basic economic indicator.

“So it’s a ‘headline-driven market’?” he wrote. “Nah, not really. . . . The market is just moving with the fundamentals, week in and week out. The headlines are mostly a distraction.”

Most political journalists figured out that the rise in Obama’s approval rating had something to do with this. However, they still seem trapped into pretending that when the real swing voters finally start paying attention to the campaign, the result will not largely converge with the fundamentals. The history of head-to-head polling suggests that about half of what we see now is noise, that the curve mostly flattens out at this stage of an election and that polls don’t really start to suggest the outcome earlier than August. The evidence for mid-May being a quiet turning point in the campaign is wafer-thin.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The bad thing about nominating Mitt Romney was that there wasn’t a lot of bigger than life stuff to define who he was as a candidate. The good thing about him though was that there wasn’t a lot of bigger than life stuff to define who he was as a candidate.

For whatever you might think, it’s getting down to quiet competence and a serious approach to the campaign. Ordinary Mitt Romney seems to be pulling ahead in that regard.

For whatever you might think, it’s getting down to quiet competence and a serious approach to the campaign. Ordinary Mitt Romney seems to be pulling ahead in that regard.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Actually, looking at the expenses for both campaigns so far, it seems that Obama is focusing on building up his grassroots support and moving into online advertising. Romney’s campaign has been more about older television markets and his staff seem to mostly be professional consultants, hence the higher salary for a Romney campaign staffer than Obama’s staff. That isn’t an advantage for Romney, unfortunately.

Obama has a stronger GOTV effort already in place and is building it up now. Romney does not seem to be seriously trying to build up a grassroots network, and the TEA Party seem to be looking at the down ticket races and not the Presidential election itself.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but all I want is a real leader and someone I can trust to a certain extent so that I can freakin’ sleep at night and not worry all the time about everything. I’m tired of worrying about what this Preezy Clown is going to do next.

The president would like to think that the turning point was when he single-handedly killed Osama Bin Laden.

I suspect an actual turing point occured when he took noted theologians Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebilius and his daughters advice on taking on the Christians about Religious Freedom and Gay Marriage.

I think the turning point came a few month’s ago when gas hit $4 a gallon and the phony unemployment rate decline began. No one is buying it anymore. It’s about the economy people. The social agenda shenanigans are just adding fuel to the fire.

Wishful thinking. The economy sucks, Rasmussen shows Obama is in deep doo-doo, and Romney is a heck of a lot more aggressive than McCains was. It’s going to take a major improvement in the economy, or Romney making a major gaffe to turn thing around for the Won.

In the meantime, the SCOTUS is about to rule on ObamaCare, and that is not looking good for 0. And his AG is about to be sited for contempt of congress, which may bring Fast n Furious to some public attention. I wouldn’t bet the farm on Oblama.

At this point it’s Mitt by 4 points. If he runs a good campaign it’s Mitt by 6. When was the last time Obama hit 50 percent approval in any poll that didn’t start with a Dem 9 to 12 point sampling bias?

I think the turning point came a few month’s ago when gas hit $4 a gallon and the phony unemployment rate decline began. No one is buying it anymore. It’s about the economy people. The social agenda shenanigans are just adding fuel to the fire.

dddave on May 14, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Gas is $3.50 in my area of MO. It may well be below $3 by November. Right now most people aren’t even paying attention to national politics, not until a war breaks out or Summer ends.

here’s the turning point: he’s the first gay president. who in their right mind wants that label??? not that i’m ashamed of it, but i don’t want to be thought of as “gay” anything. but, i don’t have my head shoved up my…

If Romney wins, it will be because he established a better organization to get out the vote and Obama’s favorability remained under 50%. It is that simple. The first item he can control; the second, he has only limited control through advertising…

Obama has a stronger GOTV effort already in place and is building it up now. Romney does not seem to be seriously trying to build up a grassroots network, and the TEA Party seem to be looking at the down ticket races and not the Presidential election itself.

Buckshot Bill on May 14, 2012 at 1:37 PM

That my friend, will be Mitt’s downfall.
There’s no “GOTV” activity for Romney, nor will there be…especially with the way Romney feels about the conservative base.

For whatever you might think, it’s getting down to quiet competence and a serious approach to the campaign. Ordinary Mitt Romney seems to be pulling ahead in that regard.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I think quiet competence is a good way to putting it. For one thing, it’s a lot harder for Obama’s people to grab onto the positions of one of the more flamboyant candidates as a wedge issue. For that reason, it seems as if Obama is popping some issues earlier than expected. Pandering to the gays and releasing an ad about Bain as just two things I thought would have recurred closer to the actual election. I guess when you only have Seamus the dog and an account of what might have happened in Romney’s prep school days, you have to drag some of this stuff out early and hope it sticks.

In March Mitt’s campaign only had about 100 staffers, at an average of $62,000. Obama had just under 600 paid staffers, at an average of $42000.

Obama spent nearly $7 million on online advertising, mostly soliciting donations, while Mitt mostly spent on TV ads for the primaries. Mitt doesn’t have a well established presence online, but Obama has dominated the internet since 2007, which was a major factor in his defeat of Hillary.

Get your head out of the clouds…..those aren’t the only thing Obama has. This thing hasn’t even started yet.

tencole on May 14, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Oh! And Romney doesn’t have anything in reserve? Sorry, it is a long time till November but I’m feeling better about Romney’s chances now than I was two months ago. I’m not going to be brought down by you Obama cheerleaders.

Wishful thinking. The economy sucks, Rasmussen shows Obama is in deep doo-doo, and Romney is a heck of a lot more aggressive than McCains was. It’s going to take a major improvement in the economy, or Romney making a major gaffe to turn thing around for the Won.

In the meantime, the SCOTUS is about to rule on ObamaCare, and that is not looking good for 0. And his AG is about to be sited for contempt of congress, which may bring Fast n Furious to some public attention. I wouldn’t bet the farm on Oblama.

iurockhead on May 14, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Romney IS a lot more aggressive than McCain, including the way he attacked Gingrich and Santorum, but he is also much more “appropriate” for this election.

Throughout the 2008 primaries, it was looking like the election would be decided on foreign policy and energy policy, and McCain was the strongest counter to Obama’s “cut-and-run” policy on Iraq.
Then the mortgage crisis hit in late September, and Bush blundered badly, McCain suspended his campaign to work on the bailout in the Senate, while Obama and Biden blamed Bush and the Republicans. Romney might have won that election if he had been the nominee.

Romney’s strength is his knowledge of economic policy, and this will be an “it’s the economy, and we’re not stupid” election. He may not be every conservative’s cup of TEA Party, but the economy has been floudering for over three years under Obama, and Romney is a particularly strong candidate in this environment. Romney needs to talk about the economy, jobs, and energy policy, and not get distracted with side issues, and if the economy is not MUCH better than it is now by October, Romney will win.

By the way, Obama’s embrace of gay marriage was a gift to Romney–after NC voted 61-39 to REJECT gay marriage, Romney knew that his own view was endorsed by a solid majority of voters in a swing state, so he could safely come out and say it.

Romney’s strength is his knowledge of economic policy, and this will be an “it’s the economy, and we’re not stupid” election.

Steve Z on May 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM

He’s also not a Washington insider. Were this a campaign focusing on international affairs and national security that would be a negative. Being that the mood is anti-incumbent and anti-DC, that is a positive.

Honey, you know nothing about me.
I loathe Mitt/GOPE as much as I loathe Obama…..to me they’re all one in the same. It just doesn’t matter to me who wins this election, but at least with Obama you know what you got and you have a congress not letting him get anything accomplished.

With Mitt who flip-flops on every subject, who also has a political history that most republicans/conservatives should abhor, has the gope pulling his strings….all the while telling the conservative base to sit down, shut up and like their candidate, who I find offensive that he is utterly unaware of his disconnect with the average American.
Take ALL of that and put him with a congress that will pass anything that the POTUS with a supposed “R” after his name will put in front of them….and I find him just as scary as Obama.

A butt sore Palin supporter who was launched to fame and fortune by ABC News.

TENCOLE posted: “I feel sad, disappointed and very bitter. I feel like the bride left at the alter and not feeling very good about the person that left me there. This could have been handled much better……we deserve better…the “boots on the ground” deserve better. I feel “led on”, and when I think of the numerous times I defended her/us against just such an announcement as this, I get nauseous … Her speeches coming up. you know like this weekend … guess what, I don’t care. She has made me start thinking that posters that I have been arguing with ad nauseaum, were right all along…*tear*”

The rapid response to Hilary Rosen and #Obamaeatsdogs would be a pretty powerful counterpoint to that theory.

ChrisL on May 14, 2012 at 2:56 PM

An online presence is more than just having a twitter account. He isn’t pushing internet ads or focusing on online fundraising, not nearly to the extent that Obama already is.

Romney’s campaign during the primaries was very conventional; outspend rivals on negative TV ads. That has been the standard since the 60′s. He can’t reach young voters without moving his campaign online, and paid phone bank staffers won’t make up for a lack of grassroots GOTV workers. Especially with so many people no longer having landlines. Mitt needs to modernize, if he wants to win in November.

Yes, that was me.
No one was more shocked and embarrassed than I was to see what I wrote out there, for all the world to see. I guess it was my little “15 minutes of fame” as they say, or as you say,”fame and fortune”….thanks for bringing it up again.

You’re right I am a “Palinista”….still am, and proud of it. Being a “Palinista” is not always easy….it forces you stand up for your convictions.
You can laugh at that if you want, but at least I know that Palin is a true constitutional conservative that I would gladly vote for….and not some “poser or wanna be” who doesn’t even know what conservatism is, that I would never vote for.

Bottom line….
I loathe Mitt/gope….always have and always will.
I loathe Obama……..always have and always will.
I will vote for neither and concentrate on down ticket elections.

BTW…..Be careful what/where you comment, or you too will obtain “fame and fortune”.

… and when Palin campaigns for Romney and urges her supporters to vote for him, what will you do?

PolAgnostic on May 14, 2012 at 3:22 PM

What if she gives a speech, and at the very end as she starts to walk off the stage says, “Oh, and vote for Mitt or something.” And never talks about him again. If he loses, are you going to blame her for not rah-rah-ing Mittens for six months?

Get your head out of the clouds…..those aren’t the only thing Obama has. This thing hasn’t even started yet.

tencole on May 14, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Oh! And Romney doesn’t have anything in reserve? Sorry, it is a long time till November but I’m feeling better about Romney’s chances now than I was two months ago. I’m not going to be brought down by you Obama cheerleaders.

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Where did this come from? One doesn’t have to be an Obama cheerleader to have watched the past, seen the present and predict the future based on that.

The LSM is swirling the bowl. They’ve put their reputations and livelihood in Obama and it’s not going so well. They’re only going to get more desperate and loud.

You honestly think that Romney (or whoever ends up the R nominee – have to remember it’s not technically over) is not going to get Palinized? C’mon really? Seriously?

If they can’t find more goodies like the dog thing or something that happened 40 years ago, they’ll start making it up. Remember McCain and the lobbyist NY Slimes story? How about a bimbo or two? Speaking of, where did Cain’s bimbos go now that he’s no longer running?

This is the same crowd that has cleared the way for Obama all through his life, from school to Illinois senate and now the White House. You think they’re going to give up now?

I would have given Sarah a few passes in the name of problem-solving pragmatism, so I’ll give Romney the same.

Besides, Tencole, your reverse-elitism bugs me. Sometimes the guys at the top are more experienced than the guys at the poker table. It’s up to us to figure out when that is. Otherwise we’re just as self-centered as the takers who vote for the biggest handouts. And if voting out of our self-interest is supposed to be the way you want to preserve the country, you and I are trying to save different countries.

I’m a Palinista,that doesn’t mean that I agree with everything she says/does…..actually I’ve questioned her many times.

I know that Palin wants Obama out, more than anything….me too. I just won’t help put Mitt in his place.
If Palin wants to do that, well good on her I guess, but that doesn’t mean I will.
To make a long story short Palinistas, contrary to what you may think, do have minds of their own and this Palinista will never vote for Romney, never….no matter what Palin says or does.

My theory is, is that Palin will support Mitt……by keeping the focus on Obama. The “voting against Obama instead of for Mitt” support.
There’s a history of bad blood between the two, so she won’t be stumping for him….he wouldn’t ask her to anyways.

That would be my Papa in Bratislava, who’s been reading here longer than me, and has an amazing photographic memory. He just sent me an e-mail with that link.

JPeterman on May 14, 2012 at 3:23 PM

So you have family in Slovakia? Cool! My father’s father immigrated from there in the 1920s when it was Czeckoslovakia.

I also read here once that your brother (?) has some properties in Prague. Awesome city, I was there a few years ago. My wife wants to live there. Maybe we will, someday…. when we have a president who isn’t so quick to throw Eastern European nations under the bus.

So you have family in Slovakia? Cool! My father’s father immigrated from there in the 1920s when it was Czeckoslovakia.

I also read here once that your brother (?) has some properties in Prague. Awesome city, I was there a few years ago. My wife wants to live there. Maybe we will, someday…. when we have a president who isn’t so quick to throw Eastern European nations under the bus.

UltimateBob on May 14, 2012 at 3:43 PM

I became a U.S. citizen in December, 2004, my parents are in Slovakia, but my siblings are still in Czech Republic and own many apartments and a few hotels and shops. Our new government after the fall of Communism, was practically giving away properties than had been confiscated by the Nazi’s and then the Soviets.

Whoever wishes that this election was over tomorrow, please raise your hand.

JPeterman on May 14, 2012 at 1:25 PM

My hand is raised. I’m voting against Obama, so I could care less what Romney has to say or the stupid issues the media is talking about. Neither Party represents me, but Glenn Beck is right when he says at least Romney’s not a Communist.

Actually, this race was over in 09. Voters’ remorse heard in MA, NJ and VA…MA and NJ forever ‘blue’ states. Losing Ted Kennedy’s seat proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Obama is a one term president.